A Study on the Reform of the Notice and Objection Procedures Related to Secret Investigations under Current Law from the perspective of the Constitutional Right to Judicial Process

Sang-Hyun Shin
{"title":"A Study on the Reform of the Notice and Objection Procedures Related to Secret Investigations under Current Law from the perspective of the Constitutional Right to Judicial Process","authors":"Sang-Hyun Shin","doi":"10.38133/cnulawreview.2023.43.3.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Considering the purpose of the Constitutional Court's decisions 2012Hun-ma191 (June 28, 2018) and 2016Hun-ma388 (July 21, 2022), which emphasized the importance of post-notification in the case of a secret investigation, and decision 2016Hun-ma344 (August 30, 2018), which saw the defective remedial procedure as an infringement of the right to judicial process, the subject of investigation should be able to request effective remedial procedures to be examined by the court for the illegality of investigative acts during the investigation process, and on the premise of that, the investigative authority should notify that fact. This is a constitutional right derived from the right to judicial process under Article 27 (1) of the Korean Constitution. Therefore, not only the legislative form that has not prepared all notice and objection procedures, but also the legislative form that only has notice procedures but does not has objection procedures violates the right to judicial process of the subject of investigation. \nAccordingly, the notice and objection procedures under current law on secret investigations should be revised. It would be most desirable to stipulate all statutory provisions on secret investigations and the notice and objection procedures in the Criminal Procedure Act, as in Germany. However, considering the reality in Korea, where special laws have already been mass-produced, the notice procedures should be reorganized in individual special acts as they are now, but at least with regard to the objection procedure, as in Austria and Switzerland, a single provision should be placed in the Criminal Procedure Act to pursue the unity of the legal system.","PeriodicalId":288398,"journal":{"name":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","volume":"97 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Institute for Legal Studies Chonnam National University","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.38133/cnulawreview.2023.43.3.57","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considering the purpose of the Constitutional Court's decisions 2012Hun-ma191 (June 28, 2018) and 2016Hun-ma388 (July 21, 2022), which emphasized the importance of post-notification in the case of a secret investigation, and decision 2016Hun-ma344 (August 30, 2018), which saw the defective remedial procedure as an infringement of the right to judicial process, the subject of investigation should be able to request effective remedial procedures to be examined by the court for the illegality of investigative acts during the investigation process, and on the premise of that, the investigative authority should notify that fact. This is a constitutional right derived from the right to judicial process under Article 27 (1) of the Korean Constitution. Therefore, not only the legislative form that has not prepared all notice and objection procedures, but also the legislative form that only has notice procedures but does not has objection procedures violates the right to judicial process of the subject of investigation. Accordingly, the notice and objection procedures under current law on secret investigations should be revised. It would be most desirable to stipulate all statutory provisions on secret investigations and the notice and objection procedures in the Criminal Procedure Act, as in Germany. However, considering the reality in Korea, where special laws have already been mass-produced, the notice procedures should be reorganized in individual special acts as they are now, but at least with regard to the objection procedure, as in Austria and Switzerland, a single provision should be placed in the Criminal Procedure Act to pursue the unity of the legal system.
宪法司法程序权视角下的现行法律秘密侦查通知与异议程序改革研究
考虑到宪法法院第2012Hun-ma191号判决书(2018年6月28日)和第2016Hun-ma388号判决书(2022年7月21日)强调秘密调查中事后通知的重要性,以及第2016Hun-ma344号判决书(2018年8月30日)将有缺陷的补救程序视为侵犯司法程序权的目的,在侦查过程中,被侦查主体应当能够请求法院对侦查行为的非法性进行有效的补救程序审查,在此前提下,侦查机关应当通知这一事实。这是根据《韩国宪法》第27(1)条获得司法程序的权利而产生的宪法权利。因此,无论是没有准备全部通知和异议程序的立法形式,还是只有通知程序而没有异议程序的立法形式,都侵犯了被侦查主体的司法程序权。因此,有必要修改现行《秘密调查法》的通知和反对程序。最好象德国那样,在《刑事诉讼法》中规定关于秘密调查和通知和反对程序的所有法定规定。但是,考虑到已经大量制定特别法的韩国的实际情况,应该像现在一样,将通知程序改编为个别特别法,但至少应该像奥地利和瑞士一样,在刑事诉讼法中单独规定反对程序,以实现法律体系的统一性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信